The Power of Perspectives

The Digital Privacy Act

Protecting the economic interests of copyright holders, or opening the door to copyright trolling in Canada?

Licensed by opensource.com under Creative Commons (CC BY-SA 2.0)

Should businesses require a court order before asking internet service providers to disclose the personal information of their online users? Or should those users have a reasonable expectation of privacy, even when they are infringing copyright laws?

Earlier this months, the Digital Privacy Act, or S-4, was tabled in the Senate. In broad strokes, it updates the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) to set new regulations on what corporations must do in the event of a data breach. But tucked inside is an amendment that has quite a different purpose.

Section 9 of the Act amends PIPEDA to introduce new circumstances where a private sector data-holder may disclose Canadians’ personal information without their knowledge or consent — where “the disclosure is necessary to investigate a breach of an agreement.”

Digital privacy experts told this journalist that the bill could lead copyright holders to go after those who download copyright material without paying — so-called “copyright trolls” — by using the threat of litigation to generate revenue, instead of actively pursuing the licensing of their intellectual property

David Fraser, a partner at McInnes Cooper, says the bill “certainly puts them in a better and easier place to extort payments from users.”

“I don’t see this as revolutionary as others might,” she told National.

“To the extent that people are infringing copyright, it’s fair to say that they have no reasonable expectation of privacy. This just assists copyright holders and content owners to get information which is otherwise very difficult to get,” Abramovitch says.

Currently, it’s just about impossible for content holders to go after pirates in Canadian courts, she says. because it’s nearly impossible to tease out just who is pirating content, without going through the Internet Service Providers.

Evidencing this, two prominent cases involving content holders trying to get personal information on copyright pirates — one launched by Voltage Pictures, and the other by BMG — offer very mixed messages on what content holders can do to go after pirates.

In BMG, a federal court found that copyright holders had no right to obtain the personal information of users suspected of download music without paying. The court of appeal upheld the decision. Nearly a decade later, in Voltage, a federal court found that a film studio did have the right to obtain information tied to IP addresses where it had reasonable belief that those addresses belong to those who had been pirating content. Even then, it put a heavy caution on the studio’s ability to go after those users, who had not been proven guilty of breaking copyright.

Given the contradiction, the length of those legal battles, and the restrictions placed on Voltage, there’s been little incentive for copyright holders to take a legal action.

With the Digital Privacy Act, those companies will be able to simply obtain that information from any cooperative Internet Service Provider, and sidestep the courts altogether.

Abramovitch says that makes sense.

“Using the courts is almost like putting the horse before the cart,” she says, noting the inherent catch-22 logic: To obtain the personal information of users, a copyright holder must convince a judge that they are breaking copyright — to prove that, you need information from the ISPs about their users. Updating the law would make PIPEDA more “agile”, she says.

John Simpson, trademark lawyer with Shift Law, disagrees. “I don’t think that encouraging private participation in law enforcement, which this does essentially, is a way to sure up copyright,” he says.

Besides, there are plenty of ways to afford more rights and powers to content holders, says Simpson. But creating a Wild West scenario for information sharing isn’t the way to do it.

“Many commentators felt that the amendments to the Copyright Modernization Act shifted the balance a little bit in favour of users, away from copyright owners,” he says. “I would certainly think that this is something that shifts the weights back in favour of copyright owners.

That balancing act — playing off privacy rights against the rights of copyright holders — is a tricky one that ultimately comes down to the good faith interests of the copyright owner. What exactly constitutes good faith is the real question. Simpson says that the amendments in the Digital Privacy Act open the door wider than just good faith protection of copyright, and towards “shakedown efforts.”

Abramovitch rejects the dichotomy: “I don’t think that anybody should be trying to strike a balance between infringers and copyright holders,” she says. “That should 100 per cent tip in favour to copyright holders.”

Filed Under:

Comments

mb
5/2/2014 2:37:44 PM

I fully agree with Abramovitch, that copyright holders should have their rights 100% maintained over infringers, but IT IS UP TO A COURT OF LAW to determine who is infringing NOT PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS, and until such a time that person is guaranteed certain legal rights.

Let's use analogy to illustrate the absurdity of institutionalizing vigilante justice:I have just had my house burgled and my TV is missing. Looking through the window of my Neighbour's house, I see a TV that looks just like mine, fortunately the new Vigilante Justice bill has just passed, so I no longer require a court of law or investigation to determine that my neighbour actually stole my television set, I can just kick down the door and go get it.

The techniques that rights holders are using to track copyright infringers are no better than peering through windows, and in many cases amount more closely to just randomly kicking in a few doors in the neighborhood in hopes of finding some stolen goods.

Chris Brand
5/1/2014 3:11:46 PM

These aren't people who have been found to have infringed, these are people who the rightsholders *think* (or claim) have infringed. Where those cases have gone to court, many have determined that the rightsholder is wrong about that - that the use was actually fair, that the rightsholder had actually granted permission for the use, or that they didn't actually own the rights in question.

The bill basically gives us "innocent until proven guilty or accused of being guilty by a rightsholder". That's just wrong - just because you own a copyright (and everybody does), that shouldn't give you the right to bypass the courts.

And of course you only have to look up "Prenda Law" to see how much we can rely on "the good faith interests of the copyright owner".

Editor's Picks

Follow Us:

National magazine is the official periodical of the Canadian Bar Association and covers the latest trends and developments affecting the legal profession and the practice of law, as well as the latest news regarding the association and its activities. If you have suggestions, ideas or requests concerning this Web site or the magazine, please send us an e-mail at national@cba.org